artistic sanctions

problem: economic sanctions against dictatorship governments don’t work. look at zimbabwe. mugabe isn’t about to give up his outlived presidency just because western nations pressure him too. he is quite happy to ignore the suffering of his people, a suffering that our sanctions have become the scapegoat for.

so if we believe that something should be done, and if we want to avoid military aggression, then we need to find a way of making the rich uncomfortable, without denying life-necessities to the poor. if we refuse to trade with the people of zimbabwe we prolong their poverty, at the same time failing to empower those poor and starving citizens to speak up against their corrupt government.

i believe that we need to hit the luxuries. what if it were possible to deny all foreign art (hollywood films, music, german made cars, italian leather, watches, etc) to be traded. Probably, it would have to start small. A group of politically active, and thoughtful artists begins a movement, and eventually some bono figure picks up the cause and runs with it.
but what if? what if we could impose artistic sanctions on foreign countries. this form of sanction would, arguably, leave the poor unaffected while denying the rich the enjoyment of their ill-earned riches. discomfort is key. what’s the point of being rich if your money can’t set you apart from the poor. i know, i know, there is way more at work here, we are talking about the greed for power, not just money.

would it work? i have no idea. but it’s an idea.

this poem was written to accompany some of my winter photos. i originally titled it 'blues' but i would prefer to call it 'winter blues'. even then i'm not sure that that is a satisfying title. anyways, title notwithstanding, it is a poem about trying to get out of the winter mindsets of boredom and depression. here goes:

frozen is not death

cold is not night

beneath, beyond, within:

excitement



crystals and diamonds

motion and structure

in rigidity

lie dormant

in want only of the life of light

evolution

this is a small river that feeds into the atlantic ocean at a beach in calais maine. i had a friend tell me today that photos like this one, the classical, pastoral scene with the 'silky' water are cliche. is this true? it seems obvious that art changes. the difference between a successful painting one hundred years ago and another today are countless, but i wonder whether that change incorporates nature. or the way that we look at nature? should the artist begin to look for new ways to interpret the beauty of nature?
like it or not, i believe that we are all a little bit post-modern. the idea that only one type of photography or painting could be beautiful or successful sounds shocking. this is because i (and i believe that the same is true of you) would rather take it for granted that we all have different artistic 'taste' and that what is, in fact, beautiful is made so in part by those who view it. however, i also don't believe that complete cultural relativism is possible (hence we have trends). i suppose this leaves the artist in an awkward place somewhere between following and leading the latest definition of beauty.

ice

here are two shots from today. Both have suffered minor color tuning (euphemism), nothing too drastic. what i find interesting is that nearly anything can make a subject for a good quality photography. we can probably agree that this is art, but what makes it so? there's no pretty model here, and no rose pedal. somehow nature gets clumped in to a huge amount of art (painting, photography, even songs, poems, and stories) so what is it that is so fascinating to us about this all? the forms? the colours? some hidden concept?

i've been thinking a lot about intentionality lately, and i think that might have a role to play in deciding what becomes art. take the blank "painting" on display at the museum, for example. or some of piccasso's stuff. a child could have done either, it could be argued. but would it still be art? or just a happy coincidence?

jan. 20

as i had intended to upload photos the day i took them, while still fresh in my mind, i suppose this is cheating a little bit. ah, well..

the inspiration here is threefold. first, i love the monochrome. it is about the bleakness of winter; a long empty field guarded by a dilapidated old fence.

second is composition. as usual, i tried to incorporate the rule of thirds (pole) and i think that the footsteps leading away create just enough interest, as well as leading the viewer's eye across the field. 

third, this is an image that speaks to where i am. it looks like a walk, a good one through an open field. perhaps an adventure. perhaps some good old fashion solitude.

number two

it has been less than twenty four hours and already i am struck by the audacity of what i am trying to do here. MYSTERY OF HUMANITY? it seems a little much.

and yet, here i am

true, i'm engaged in a second disclaimer to an idea that has barely gotten itself off the ground, but don't we all love disclaimers?

so here it is: this is a site about art. predominantly photography, but i also have a deep love of poetry and prose. so if you are looking for a lesson in technique you may be in the wrong place. if, however, you are interested in a discourse on the relationship between art and beauty, and on the role of the photographer in this self-destructive world that we live in

tune in and read on. and please, let me know what you think

mystery of humanity?

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that to create a work of art is to throw light upon the mystery of humanity. My hope is to be able to contribute to that tradition both through written word and through my visual art; photography. I mean for it to be a journey. With hope, it will be a journey upwards, through the concentric circles of life towards beauty. For any who journey with me, my hope is that you will learn a little something true, about yourself or at least the world around you, as you learn about me. Please, share your comments. Let us work together to be the change that we would like to see.